a conceptual framework for understanding self-direction in adult learning

In this chapter from Self-Direction in Adult Learning (1991), Ralph
G. Brockett and Roger Hiemstra argue that self-direction in learning refers to
two distinct but related dimensions: as an instructional process where a learner
assumes primary responsibility for the learning process; and as a personality
characteristic centering on a learner's desire or preference for assuming
responsibility for learning.

In introducing Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on Theory,
Research, and Practice Brockett and Hiemstra write as follows:

Few topics, if any, have received more attention in the field of adult
education over the past two decades than self-directed learning. Ever since the
1971 publication of Allen Tough's seminal study, The Adult's Learning Projects,
fascination with self-planned and self-directed learning has led to one of the
most extensive and sustained research efforts in the history of the field.
During the same time, a host of new programs and practices, such as external
degree programs and computer and video technologies, have gained enthusiastic
support from many segments of the field. The time seems appropriate for drawing
some meaning from all of these theory, research, and practice developments.

Self-Direction in Adult Learning was their attempt 'to make sense out of
this body of knowledge and array of practices that have done so much to shape
the current face of adult education in North America and, indeed, throughout
much of the world'.

This chapter sets out some key theoretical understandings of the notion.

Ralph
G. Brockett is Professor in Adult Education, the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN. He holds B.A. and M.Ed. degrees from the University of Toledo and
a Ph.D. in Adult Education from Syracuse University where he focussed his
doctoral research on self-directed learning and initiated an innovative weekend
scholar masters in adult education program. A past President of the Commission
of Professors of Adult Education, Brockett has also served professorial roles at
Syracuse University and Montana State University. He has published widely,
including receiving an annual adult education book award. He also served as
senior editor of New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education for a number
of years.

Roger
Hiemstra is Professor and Chair, Adult Education, Elmira College. He was
inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame in
2000. His books include Lifelong Learning (1976), Self-Direction in Adult
Learning: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice (1991), Environments
for Effective Adult Learning (1991), and Overcoming Resistance to Self-Direction
in Learning (1994), and Professional Writing (1994).

Self-direction in learning is a way of life. This idea, which served as
the backdrop for Chapter One, may be self-evident to many readers. Yet, much of
what we do as educators of adults runs contrary to this basic idea. The myths
presented in Chapter One illustrate some of the ways in which we, as educators,
sometimes misunderstand or misuse our roles in a way that may run contrary to
this "way of life." It is our view that much of this misunderstanding and misuse
is due, in large part, to confusion that exists relative to what is meant by
self-direction in adult learning.

In this chapter, we work to alleviate some of this confusion by providing a
conceptual framework that can help to clarify the concept of self-direction
relative to the process of adult learning. We begin by looking at various ways
in which self-direction and related concepts have been defined. We then offer
our own definition of self-direction in adult learning. Finally, we share a
conceptual framework that emphasizes distinctions between self-directed learning
as an instructional method and learner self-direction as a personality
characteristic.

Self direction in adult learning:
a misunderstood concept

As with so many of the ideas found within the study and practice of adult
education, self-direction in learning is fraught with confusion. This confusion
is compounded by the many related concepts that are often used either
interchangeably or in a similar way. Examples include self-directed learning,
self-planned learning, self teaching, autonomous learning, independent study,
and distance education. Yet these terms offer varied, though often subtly
different, emphases. To illustrate these differences, several views of
self-direction can be compared and contrasted.

An Early View of Self-Education.
In the 19th Century, Hosmer (1847) described self-education in the following
way: " The common opinion seems to be that self-education is distinguished by
nothing but the manner of its acquisition. It is thought to denote simply
acquirements made without a teacher, or at all events without oral
instruction--advantages always comprehended in the ordinary cause of education.
But this merely negative circumstance, however important, . . . is only one of
several particulars equally characteristic of self-education . . . . Besides the
absence of many, or all of the usual facilities for learning, there are at least
three things peculiar to this enterprise, namely: the longer time required, the
wider range of studies, and the higher character of its object." (p. 42)

A Lifelong Learning Perspective.
It is important to think of self-direction in learning from a lifelong learning
perspective. Lifelong learning, as will be noted in Chapter Eight, is not the
exclusive domain of adult educators; it refers to learning that takes place
across the entire lifespan. This view is supported by Kidd (1973) in the
following passage: "It has often been said that the purpose of adult education,
or of any kind of education, is to make the subject a continuing,
'inner-directed' self-operating learner." (p. 47)

Another way of looking at self-directed learning has been provided by Mocker
and Spear (1982). Using a 2 X 2 matrix, based on learner vs. institution control
over the objectives (purposes) and means (processes) of learning, Mocker and
Spear identify four categories comprising lifelong learning: formal, where
"learners have no control over the objectives or means of their learning;"
nonformal, where "learners control the objectives but not the means;" informal,
where "learners control the means but not the objectives;" and self-directed,
where "learners control both the objectives and the means" (1982, p. 4).

Self-Directed Learning and Schooling.
Looking at self-direction as it relates to schooling for young people,
Della-Dora and Blanchard (1979) offer the following view: " Self-directed
learning refers to characteristics of schooling which should distinguish
education in a democratic society from school in autocratic societies." (p. 1)

However, in describing the nature of self-education, Gibbons and Phillips
(1982) offer a different view of self-education and schooling: " Self-education
occurs outside of formal institutions, not inside them. The skills can be taught
and practiced in schools, teachers can gradually transfer the authority and
responsibility for self-direction to students, and self-educational acts can be
simulated, but self-education can only truly occur when people are not compelled
to learn and others are not compelled to teach them--especially not to teach
them a particular subject-matter curriculum. While schools can prepare students
for a life of self-education, true self-education can only occur when a person
chooses to learn what he can also decide not to learn." (p. 69)

This second view reinforces the idea of learning as a lifelong process.
Though the focus of this book is on self-direction in learning during adulthood,
it is important to recognize that self-direction is not restricted solely to
learning in the adult years.

A Learning Process Perspective.
Self-direction in adulthood has often been described as a learning process, with
specific phases, in which the learner assumes primary control. Tough (1979), for
instance, has emphasized the concept of self-planned learning. His research was
concerned with a specific portion of the process: the "planning and deciding"
aspects of learning.

Using the related concept of the "autonomous learner," Moore (1980) has
described such an individual as one who can do the following: "Identify his
learning need when he finds a problem to be solved, a skill to be acquired, or
information to be obtained. He is able to articulate his need in the form of a
general goal, differentiate that goal into several specific objectives, and
define fairly explicitly his criteria for successful achievement. In
implementing his need, he gathers the information he desires, collects ideas,
practices skills, works to resolve his problems, and achieves his goals. In
evaluating, the learner judges the appropriateness of newly acquired skills, the
adequacy of his solutions, and the quality of his new ideas and knowledge." (p.
23)

Still another view of self-direction that stresses the phases of a learning
process has been offered by Knowles (1975). His view has been perhaps the most
frequently used in the adult education literature to date: "In its broadest
meaning, 'self-directed learning' describes a process in which individuals take
the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning
needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for
learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and
evaluating learning outcomes." (p. 18)

An Evolving Perspective.
Not only do individuals differ in their views of self-direction in learning, but
each individual's view is likely to change over time. Thus, when considering
definitions, it is not only necessary to understand who has offered a particular
definition, but when it was offered. This evolutionary process can be
illustrated through the writings of Stephen Brookfield. For example, in 1980,
Brookfield used the term "independent adult learning" to describe a process that
takes place in situations "when the decisions about intermediate and terminal
learning goals to be pursued, rate of student progress, evaluative procedures to
be employed, and sources of material to be consulted are in the hands of the
learner" (1980, p. 3).

Subsequently, as Brookfield began to contribute his ideas about
self-direction to the North American adult education literature, the term
"self-directed learning" started to appear in his writing. In using this term,
Brookfield (1984c) noted the need to recognize differences between "learning"
and "education." Citing various authors who had addressed this distinction
(e.g., Jensen, 1960; Verner, 1964; Little, 1979; and Boshier, 1983), Brookfield
noted that learning has been used alternately to describe "an internal change in
consciousness . . . an alteration in the state of the central nervous system" as
well as "a range of activities . . . . equivalent to the act of learning" (p.
61). In this view, the former is used interchangeably with learning while the
latter is used in a way similar to education.

Most recently, Brookfield (1988) has expressed this concern about semantic
ambiguity to the extent that instead of using the term "self-directed learning,"
he is "reverting to talking about the complex phenomenon of learning (as an
internal change of consciousness) and making a distinction between this
phenomenon and the educational setting or mode in which such learning occurs"
(p. 16). While some may disparage writers who make such drastic changes in
stance over time, we applaud Brookfield's effort since, although we do not agree
with his recent view that the adult education field should abandon its
enthusiasm for the concept of self-directed learning, Brookfield demonstrates a
willingness to accommodate new insights and information and to modify his
position accordingly. Indeed, the conceptual framework presented later in this
chapter reflects the evolution of own thinking about self-direction over the
past several years.

Instructional method or
personality characteristic?

As has been noted earlier, most efforts to understand self-direction in
learning to date have centered on the notion of an instructional process in
which the learner assumes a primary role in planning, implementing, and
evaluating the experience. Yet, this view becomes weakened when considered in
relation to semantic and conceptual concerns such as those raised by Brookfield.
One of the first authors to address the confusion over the meaning of
self-directed learning was Kasworm (1983), who stated that self-directed
learning can be viewed as a "set of generic, finite behaviors; as a belief
system reflecting and evolving from a process of self-initiated learning
activity; or as an ideal state of the mature self-actualized learner" (p. 1). At
about the same time, Chene (1983) addressed the concept of autonomy, which she
largely equated with self-directed learning. In this article, Chene
distinguished between two meanings of autonomy, where one view is psychological
and the other "is related to a methodology which either assumes that the learner
is autonomous or aims at achieving autonomy through training" (p. 40).

Clearly, the concern over what is meant by self-directed learning is a
relevant one. Take, for example, the researcher who is interested in studying
self-directedness as an internal change process, but who operationalizes
self-directed learning as an instructional process. While there are definite
similarities between the two concepts, the ideas are not the same. In fact, as
will be noted in Chapter Four, this has been a problem in much of the research
on self-direction conducted to date.

During a period of about one year, three authors tried to clarify the meaning
of self-directed learning. Brookfield (1984c), as was noted earlier, used an
argument presented by Boshier (1983) to point out that ambiguity of the term
self-directed learning might be linked to confusion between learning (an
internal change process) and education (a process for managing external
conditions that facilitate this internal change). In this view, the term
"self-directed learning" might best be reserved for the former while the latter
would actually be viewed as "self-directed education."

At about the same time, Fellenz (1985) made a distinction between
self-direction as a learning process and as an aspect of personal development.
According to Fellenz, self-direction can be viewed in one of two ways: ". . .
either as a role adopted during the process of learning or as a psychological
state attained by an individual in personal development. Both factors can be
viewed as developed abilities and, hence, analyzed both as to how they are
learned and how they affect self-directed learning efforts." (1985, p. 164)

In building the link between self-direction and personal development, Fellenz
draws from such concepts as inner-directedness (Riesman, 1950),
self-actualization (Maslow, 1954), locus of control (Rotter, 1966), autonomy (Erikson,
1964), and field independence (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971).

A third effort to clarify the concept of self-direction was made by Oddi
(1984, 1985), who reported the development of a new instrument designed to
identify what she refers to as "self-directed continuing learners." The Oddi
Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI), a 24-item Likert scale, grew out of Oddi's
concern over the lack of a theoretical foundation for understanding personality
characteristics of self-directed continuing learners. The development of this
instrument, which will be discussed more fully in Chapter Four, was an outgrowth
of the need to distinguish between personality characteristics of self-directed
learners and the notion of self-directed learning as "a process of
self-instruction" (Oddi, 1985, p.230). This distinction is not unlike the one
made by Chene (1983) relative to the concept of autonomy.

In a subsequent article, Oddi (1987) distinguished between the "process
perspective" and the "personality perspective" relative to self-directed
learning, suggesting that the process perspective has been the most predominant
in discussions of research and practice to date. As will be shown later in this
chapter, this distinction between process and personality perspectives lies at
the heart of the model we will present.

Finally, Candy (1988) has offered further support for a distinction between
concepts. In a critical analysis of the term "self-direction" through a review
of literature and synthesis of research findings, Candy concluded that
self-direction has been used "(i) as a personal quality or attribute (personal
autonomy); (ii) as the independent pursuit of learning outside formal
instructional settings (autodidaxy); and (iii) as a way of organizing
instruction (learner-control)" (p. 1033-A). Thus, Candy is essentially taking
the distinction even further by differentiating between the learning process
taking place both within and outside of the institutional setting.

Clearly, the concept of self-directed learning has undergone close scrutiny
over the past several years. What has emerged is an important distinction
between the process of self-directed learning and the notion of self-direction
as a personality construct. This distinction needs careful consideration if we
are to move ahead with the study and practice of the phenomenon.

Self-direction in learning as an umbrella concept

As we have noted, the idea of self-directed learning has undergone
considerable evolution over the past several years. Indeed, this evolution can
sometimes be seen in the case of a single author, as has been the case with
Brookfield. It can also be seen in the subtle changes resulting from the
research of many individuals over several years. Like Brookfield's, our own
notions of self-directed learning have evolved over time. The following two
definitions are indicative of our earlier thinking about the concept: "
Self-planned learning-A learning activity that is self-directed, self-initiated,
and frequently carried out alone. (Hiemstra, 1976a, p. 39) And "Broadly defined,
self-directed learning refers to activities where primary responsibility for
planning, carrying out, and evaluating a learning endeavor is assumed by the
individual learner." (Brockett, 1983b, p. 16)

Unlike Brookfield, however, instead of advocating movement away from the
concept, we embrace the view that what is needed is to expand the concept and to
encourage its continued development as a central theme in the field of adult
education. However, it is our belief that in doing this, we need to move away
from overemphasis on the term "self-directed learning." Instead, given the
confusion over self-directed learning as instructional method versus personality
characteristic, we suggest that the term self-direction in learning can provide
the breadth needed to more fully reflect current understanding of the concept.

In our view, self-direction in learning refers to two distinct but related
dimensions. The first of these dimensions is a process in which a learner
assumes primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating the
learning process. An education agent or resource often plays a facilitating role
in this process. This is the notion of self-directed learning as it has
generally been used identified in the professional literature. The second
dimension, which we refer to as learner self-direction, centers on a learner's
desire or preference for assuming responsibility for learning. This is the
personality aspect discussed earlier. Thus, self-direction in learning refers to
both the external characteristics of an instructional process and the internal
characteristics of the learner, where the individual assumes primary
responsibility for a learning experience. The remainder of this chapter will
center on discussion of a model designed to further clarify this definition.

The PRO model: a framework for understanding self-direction in adult learning

If the idea of self-direction in learning is viewed as comprising both
instructional method processes (self-directed learning) and personality
characteristics of the individual (learner self-direction), it is important to
consider how these two dimensions are related. As a way of illustrating this
relationship, we propose a model that distinguishes between these two dimensions
while at the same time, recognizing that the two dimensions are inextricably
linked to a broader view of self-direction. This model, which we refer to as the
"Personal Responsibility Orientation" (PRO) model of self-direction in adult
learning is designed to recognize both the differences and similarities between
self-directed learning as an instructional method and learner self-direction as
a personality characteristic. The model is not only intended to serve as a way
of better understanding self-direction, it can also serve as a framework for
building future theory, research, and practice. The major components of the PRO
model, illustrated in Figure 2.1, are outlined below.

Figure 2.1: The "Personal Responsibility
Orientation" (PRO) Model

Personal Responsibility as a Central Concept.
As can be seen in Figure 2.1, the point of departure for understanding
self-direction in adult learning, according to the PRO model, is the notion of
personal responsibility. By personal responsibility we mean that individuals
assume ownership for their own thoughts and actions. Personal responsibility
does not necessarily mean control over personal life circumstances or
environment. However, it does mean that a person has control over how to respond
to a situation. As summarized by Elias and Merriam (1980), behavior "is the
consequence of human choice which individuals can freely exercise" (p. 118). For
instance, oppressed people typically lack control over their social environment;
however, they can choose how they will respond to the environment. They can
resign themselves to accepting the status quo or they can choose to act in a way
designed to alter the current situation. In the latter case, while the outcome
may not always be what is desired, the decision to act in a certain way reflects
a choice not to willingly accept "the way things are." Within the context of
learning, it is the ability and/or willingness of individuals to take control of
their own learning that determines their potential for self-direction.

Drawing largely on assumptions of humanistic philosophy, we base this
emphasis on personal responsibility on two ideas. First, we embrace the view
that human nature is basically good and that individuals possess virtually
unlimited potential for growth. Second, we believe that only by accepting
responsibility for one's own learning is it possible to take a proactive
approach to the learning process. These assumptions imply a great deal of faith
and trust in the learner and, thus, offer a foundation for the notion of
personal responsibility relative to learning.

Perhaps another way of understanding what we mean by personal responsibility
can be found in the idea of autonomy, as discussed by Chene, who provides the
following perspective: "Autonomy means that one can and does set one's own
rules, and can choose for oneself the norms one will respect. In other words,
autonomy refers to one's ability to choose what has value, that is to say, to
make choices in harmony with self-realization." (1983, p. 39)

Autonomy, as defined above, assumes that one will take personal
responsibility, because one is independent "from all exterior regulations and
constraints" (Chene, 1983, p. 39).

While we envision personal responsibility as the cornerstone of
self-direction in learning, it is important to stress three related points.
First, while we emphasize our commitment to the view that human potential is
unlimited, we believe that each individual assumes some degree of personal
responsibility. It is not an either/or characteristic. Thus, adult learners will
possess different degrees of willingness to accept responsibility for themselves
as learners. As was noted in the last chapter, it is a misconception to assume
that learners necessarily enter a learning experience with a high level of
self-direction already intact. Self-direction is not a panacea for all problems
associated with adult learning. Nor is it always necessary for one to be highly
self-directed in order to be a successful learner. However, if being able to
assume greater control for one's destiny is a desirable goal of adult education
(and we believe it is!), then a role for educators of adults is to help learners
become increasingly able to assume personal responsibility for their own
learning.

Second, the emphasis on personal responsibility as the cornerstone of
self-direction in learning implies that the primary focus of the learning
process is on the individual, as opposed to the larger society. Yet, accepting
responsibility for one's actions as a learner does not ignore the social context
in which the learning takes place. Such a view would be extremely short sighted.
What personal responsibility does mean, however, is that the point of departure
for understanding learning lies within the individual. Once this individual
dimension is recognized, it is then important to examine the social dimensions
that impact upon the learning process. And related to this point is a belief
that one who assumes personal responsibility as an individual is in a stronger
position to also be more socially responsible.

Finally, it is important to point out that in taking responsibility for one's
thoughts and actions, one also assumes responsibility for the consequences of
those actions. As Rogers (1961, p. 171) has stated, to be "self-directing means
that one chooses--and then learns from the consequences." Within the context of
adult education, Day (1988) has used fictional literature to illustrate this
point. Drawing from the works
Oedipus Rex, Martin Eden, Pygmalion, and Educating Rita, Day
argues that adults are "decision-making beings" who are "ultimately responsible"
for the decisions they make, that the "results of our learning experiences may
as likely lead to discontent as to a state of well-being," and that in general
"learning produces consequences" (p. 125).

In conclusion, the notion of personal responsibility, as we are using it in
the PRO model, means that learners have choices about the directions they pursue
as learners. Along with this goes a responsibility for accepting the
consequences of one's thoughts and actions as a learner. The idea of personal
responsibility will be further developed throughout the book, particularly in
Chapter Seven, where the theoretical underpinnings of learner self-direction are
explored.

Self-Directed Learning: The Process Orientation.
Self-directed learning, as we have come to view the term, refers to an
instructional method. It is a process that centers on the activities of
planning, implementing, and evaluating learning. Most of the writings and
research on self-directed and self-planned learning from the early and mid-1970s
were developed from this perspective (e.g., Knowles, 1975; Tough, 1979).
Similarly, the definitions of self-directed learning that we have used
previously (Hiemstra, 1976a; Brockett, 1983a) stress this process orientation.
Further, one of us (Hiemstra, 1988a; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990) has described this
as individualizing the teaching and learning process.

The process orientation of self-direction in adult learning focuses on
characteristics of the teaching-learning transaction. Thus, when considering
this aspect of self-direction, concern revolves around factors external to the
individual. Needs assessment, evaluation, learning resources, facilitator roles
and skills, and independent study are a few of the concepts that fall within the
domain of the self-directed learning process. The illustrations compiled in
recent books by Knowles and Associates (1984) and Brookfield (1985) exemplify
this concept of self-directed learning as an instructional process in such areas
as human resource development, continuing professional education, graduate and
undergraduate study, and community education. Given the distinction between
learning and education made earlier in the chapter, some readers may wish to
think of this process orientation as "self-directed education." We do not
disagree with this term, but choose to refer to the process as "self-directed
learning" in order to stress the link to the foundation laid by Knowles. Chapter
Six offers a closer look at the process orientation of self-directed learning.

Learner Self-Direction: The Personal Orientation.
While most of the work that has been seminal to the foundation of self-direction
in learning has focused on the process orientation described above, the
importance of understanding characteristics of successful self-directed learners
has generally been stressed as well. For instance, Knowles (1970) identified
several assumptions underlying the concept of andragogy as a model for helping
adults learn. The first of these assumptions was that the self-concept of adult
learners is characterized by self-direction, whereas dependence characterizes
the self-concept of the child. Knowles (1980) later revised his view of pedagogy
and andragogy from a dichotomy to a continuum. However, his emphasis on
self-concept reflects the centrality of personality as an element of self-
direction in learning. This emphasis on personality characteristics of the
learner, or factors internal to the individual, is what we refer to as the
"personal orientation" or learner self-direction.

Thus, in our view, learner self-direction refers to characteristics of an
individual that predispose one toward taking primary responsibility for personal
learning endeavors. Conceptually, the notion of learner self-direction grows
largely from ideas addressed by Rogers (1961, 1983), Maslow (1970), and other
writers from the area of humanistic psychology. Evidence of this personal
orientation can be found in much of the research on self-direction in adult
learning since the late 1970s. For instance, self-directedness has been studied
in relation to such variables as creativity (Torrance & Mourad, 1978),
self-concept (Sabbaghian, 1980), life satisfaction (Brockett 1983c, 1985a),
intellectual development (Shaw, 1987), and hemisphericity (Blackwood, 1988).
Learner self-direction is discussed further in Chapter Seven.

Self-Direction in Learning: The Vital Link.
As we pointed out earlier, self-direction in learning is a term that we use as
an umbrella concept to recognize both external factors that facilitate the
learner taking primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating
learning, and internal factors or personality characteristics that predispose
one toward accepting responsibility for one's thoughts and actions as a learner.
The PRO model illustrates this distinction between external and internal forces.
At the same time it recognizes, through the notion of personal responsibility,
that there is a strong connection between self-directed learning and learner
self-direction. This connection provides a key to understanding the success of
self-direction in a given learning context.

It was noted in Chapter One that one of the myths related to self-direction
in learning is that it is an "all-or-nothing" characteristic. In our view, both
the internal and external aspects of self-direction can be viewed on a
continuum. Thus, a given learning situation will fit somewhere within a range
relative to opportunity for self-directed learning and, similarly, an
individual's level of self-directedness will fall somewhere within a range of
possible levels. Related to this view of self-direction as a continuum is our
belief that it is a mistake to consider high self-direction as ideal in all
learning situations. As we have noted previously, because of "the great
diversity that exists both in learning styles and in reasons for learning, it is
extremely shortsighted to advance" the view that self-direction is the best way
to learn and that instead, it is more desirable to think of self-direction as
"an ideal mode of learning for certain individuals and for certain situations"
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1985, p. 33). It is this point that serves to link the
concepts of self-directed learning and learner self-direction.

We suggest that optimal conditions for learning result when there is a
balance or congruence between the learner's level of self-direction and the
extent to which opportunity for self-directed learning is possible in a given
situation. If, for example, one is predisposed toward a high level of
self-directedness and is engaged in a learning experience where self-direction
is actively facilitated, chances for success are high. Similarly, the learner
who is not as high in self-directedness is likely to find comfort and, in all
likelihood, a greater chance of success in a situation where the instructor
assumes a more directive role. In both instances, the chances for success are
relatively high, since the learner's expectations are congruent with the
conditions of the learning situation.

Where difficulties and frustrations arise is when the balance between
internal characteristics of the learner are not in harmony with external
characteristics of the teaching-learning transaction. Individuals who enter a
learning situation with a clear idea of how and what they wish to learn are
likely to become frustrated and disenchanted if not given the freedom to pursue
these directions. In the same vein, the learner who seeks a high level of
guidance and direction will probably have similar feelings in a situation where
the facilitator emphasizes an active leadership role by the learners. For
individuals in either situation, the problem is that the teaching-learning
situation is not in harmony with the needs and desires the learner brought to
the situation. This does not mean that the learner was "unsuccessful," nor that
the facilitator was "ineffective." Rather, it suggests that success and
effectiveness are relative terms that depend on clear communication of needs and
expectations among all parties engaged in the teaching-learning transaction.

The notion of learner self-direction, as an element of the PRO model,
suggests a general tendency that exists to a greater or lesser degree in all
learners. However, it is important to recognize that situational factors are
often likely to impact on the type of instructional method a learner will seek.
An adult who seeks to learn about current trends in real estate, for example,
may be willing to relinquish control over the learning situation to the session
leader for reasons of expedience or because of a personal lack of knowledge and
experience in the real estate area. This does not diminish the learner's level
of self-direction; indeed, the decision to relinquish a degree of control was
consciously made by the learner.

Several years ago, the first author attended a research conference where
participants met to exchange information and ideas based on current research.
The format for this conference, as is often the case for research conferences,
was a series of paper sessions and symposia consisting of formal presentations
followed by questions and discussions from the audience. In one symposium, the
first presenter began by discussing some of the research trends in the topical
area under consideration. However, about 20 minutes later, the second presenter
began his portion of the symposium by asking participants to move their chairs
into a circle so that it would be easier to "share ideas." At least half of the
group exercised a degree of self-direction by immediately leaving the room.

The above examples have been presented to illustrate two points. First,
self-directed learning--the method that the second presenter was trying to
implement--is not inherently the best method for adult learning. Although we
believe that self-directed learning situations will most often be compatible
with the needs, desires, and capabilities of adult learners, there are times
when a highly teacher-directed approach will prove most effective and, indeed,
will be expected and even demanded.

Second, when considering the fit between self-directed learning and learner
self-direction, it is important to keep in mind that the congruence between
these dimensions may at times be mitigated by factors such as the expectations
of the learners. That symposium presenter must certainly have felt a degree of
frustration and perhaps hurt as half of the audience walked out on his efforts
to create a climate that most likely had served him very well in other settings.
However, it is likely that the lack of congruence between his approach and the
context in which the learning situation was taking place led to the exodus of so
many participants. This brings us to a final element of the PRO model, which is
a consideration of the social context in which self-direction in learning
exists.

The Social Context for Self-Direction in Learning.
The final element of the PRO model is represented by the circle encompassing the
other elements. One of the most frequent criticisms of self-direction in
learning has been an overemphasis on the individual, which is usually
accompanied a failure to consider the social context in which learning takes
place. Brookfield (1984c), for example, has suggested that by "concentrating
attention on the features of individual learner control over the planning,
conduct and evaluation of learning, the importance of learning networks and
informal learning exchanges has been forgotten" (p. 67). In the PRO model, the
individual learner is, in fact, central to the idea of self-direction. However,
such learning activities cannot be divorced from the social context in which
they occur. This point is further reinforced through discussions on the role of
institutions in Chapter Eight and policy issues in Chapter Nine. We agree with
Brookfield that social context is vital to understanding self-direction and
that, to date, this concern has largely been overlooked. Brookfield's (1981) own
research, in which he found that "independent adult learners" often function as
a "fellowship of learning" is a noteworthy exception to this gap in knowledge.
One of the myths of self-direction identified in Chapter One is that such
learning takes place in isolation. In order to truly understand the impact of
self-direction, both as an instructional method and as a personality
characteristic, it is crucial to recognize the social milieu in which such
activity transpires.

Related to the social context are the political implications of
self-direction in learning. Again, Brookfield (1984c) has helped to raise
consciousness about the politics of self-direction. This, in turn, triggered the
following response: "Brookfield's comments are most insightful, for they force
us to ponder the real consequences of situations where learners are truly in
control of their learning. . . . many individuals, especially those who can be
considered "hard-to-reach", may believe that formal educational settings can
reinforce conformity while stifling creativity. For such persons, institutions
may be perceived as antithetical to the self-directed learning process. On a
larger scale, these issues are amplified in situations where individuals view
themselves as powerless in determining the direction of their lives. What are
the potential consequences. . . of promoting self-direction in societies where
individual human rights may be in question? Clearly, the issue of control is a
crucial one because, ultimately, it must move beyond the individual dimension
into the social and political arenas." (Brockett, 1985c, p. 58)

Thus, while the individual is the "starting point" for understanding
self-direction in adult learning, the social context provides the arena in which
the activity of self-direction is played out. In order for us to truly
understand the phenomenon of self-direction in adult learning, it will be
crucial to recognize and deal with the interface between these individual and
social dimensions. Chapters Eight and Ten address the social context from
institutional and cross-cultural perspectives, respectively.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have attempted to alleviate some of the confusion
surrounding the meaning of self-direction and related concepts. By proposing the
Personal Responsibility Orientation model, we are suggesting that in order to
understand the complexity of self-direction in adult learning, it is essential
to recognize differences between self-directed learning as an instructional
method and learner self-direction as a personality characteristic. These two
dimensions are linked through the recognition that each emphasizes the
importance of learners assuming personal responsibility for their thoughts and
actions. Finally, the PRO model is designed to advance understanding of
self-direction by recognizing the vital role played by the social context in
which learning takes place. Moving to a critical examination of research on
self-direction in the next two chapters, the remainder of the book is designed
to further illuminate the ideas expressed in the PRO model.

To cite this chapter: Brockett, R. G. and Hiemstra, R. (1991) 'A
conceptual framework for understanding self-direction in adult learning' in
Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice,
London and New York: Routledge. Reproduced in the informal education archives:
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/hiemstra_self_direction.htm